Contact Proof Printing vs Scan

Ian Grant · May 11, 2014

I don't do either, I find I can tell far more by looking at a negative itself and it's a long time since I last did a contact sheet.

Would I scan first, possibly, I've found my negatives scan very easily. When I shot some images in Southern Turkey I processed and scanned some negatives going on to make digital negatives for Platinum prints. What surprised me was how close the scanned images were to later darkroom prints. I should add I choose the images by visual inspection of the negatives before deciding which to use.

The disadvantages of Contact prints is they are usually (unless working off large negatives) to small to really indicate sharpness in different points of an image and don't really give an indication of detail, or of the full tonality. I really only ever did them for others to chose which images they wanted printing.

Ian

winger · May 11, 2014

I ALWAYS use the same setting for contact prints. f8, 8 seconds, #2 filter and the height for the enlarger chassis is marked. If they are always done this way, I can tell looking at the sheet which frame will print better and whether the roll as a whole was exposed properly. If I changed any value in the recipe, I wouldn't be able to tell as easily what I need to know before I print.
If I want to judge sharpness or focus on smaller negs, I just use a loupe - scanned doesn't help because it isn't always perfect across the whole frame.

Pioneer · May 11, 2014

winger said:
I ALWAYS use the same setting for contact prints. f8, 8 seconds, #2 filter and the height for the enlarger chassis is marked. If they are always done this way, I can tell looking at the sheet which frame will print better and whether the roll as a whole was exposed properly. If I changed any value in the recipe, I wouldn't be able to tell as easily what I need to know before I print.
If I want to judge sharpness or focus on smaller negs, I just use a loupe - scanned doesn't help because it isn't always perfect across the whole frame.

F11, 11 seconds, 15 inches. Every time. Develop, fix and wash. I can do 5 contact sheets at one time (probably more if I needed to) and I am usually totally done in 30 minutes or less with prints drying. Scanning that will take me all afternoon, if not longer.

removed account4 · May 11, 2014

hi redsun

in addition to what i said before ...
if you know the limitations
of your methods and that the scan
well, its just a scan, and not really showing
some attributes of a wet print, and you can live with
that sort of "slack" in your process then there is no need to
worry about what you are doing, and if you should be printing contact sheets instead ..
but if the limitations in your scanning are a hinderance to your printing because
the image LOOKS / SEEMS one way on your monitor, and you are unable to
understand how that translates to in a physical wet print, and it bothers you,
then maybe it isn't really something that works for you ...
my own situation ... i don't make contact sheets very much anymore, i got away from it
when i was broke and couldn't afford to use the paper on anything but the end process of what would become a print ..
( test strips test prints &c ) and i got ok at seeing what something looked like as a negative ... kind of like when someone
looks at the ground glass it is upside down and backwards, but eventually it seems normal ...
i do make scan proofs though .. and 99.99% times i am able to replicate what i do on my monitor with what i make in the darkroom
and i know the limits of both the methods that i work with ... but if i was to skan something and afterwards have no clue what i could do
in the dark, that would be kind of a problem and i wouldn't do that anymore, or maybe if it was too much of a PITA to learn, i would just to to dpug and never come here again.

Andrew K · May 12, 2014

you can't (or at least I never have) judged sharpness form a contact print..

The ONLY way to judge sharpness is to look at the negs through a GOOD loupe

I scan my negs before printing, as the result is the same a a contact print - it's a guide to see if there is anything you want to print. The advantage is I don't have to d it in the dark, and I don't have to mix chemistry whenever I have a film to proof..

NB23 · May 12, 2014

Im sorry but i think it is s*upid for many reasons. The first one being that storing the contact sheet with its negative is invaluable.
Browsing through negatives without contact sheets quickly drives a person crazy.

Xmas · May 12, 2014

I do scan but only for

- finding the negative file
- recording the burn dodge split grade exposure details

Few of my negs will straight print...

I have a text file with tab formatting to search by title or date or similar key words the text file is key word to neg file index number

Keepers I make high or low res scans of and ink jet print rescan for density mark up gloss on the ink jet print.
They are stored in a folder name the same as the index number on the negative file.

Then I power the enlarger and exp meter and waste a lotta RC or paper.

If I have a nice AgBr RC at end of secession I rescan both sides of the remarked up inkjet print and leave it in the same computer folder.

All this to same save time and box of VC and to locate neg file

One flaw is I'm explaining the process to a lady photog with a straight ink jet cause I don't have photoshop or similar.

Lady says 'no I like the subject emphasis as taken it could even be more extreme' so a straight print cine noire style would have worked for her.

Sigh.

NB23 · May 12, 2014

Why do you bother with film at all?

Xmas · May 12, 2014

Cause I don't have a digital camera, the scanner is not wonderful, & the inkjet is the cheapest in shop.

The last retrieval I did was for a banksy.

So rather than search through a large number of contract sheets the computer searches the text file for banksy and it tells me three negative filing numbers.

I neither take many banksy photos nor have I wet printed any...

Searching contacts is time consuming and needs concentration. When you file the negs it is quicker to key word than wet print a contact sheet I do light box the negs.

I prefer shooting negs than filing them.

Sirius Glass · May 12, 2014

winger said:
I ALWAYS use the same setting for contact prints. f8, 8 seconds, #2 filter and the height for the enlarger chassis is marked. If they are always done this way, I can tell looking at the sheet which frame will print better and whether the roll as a whole was exposed properly. If I changed any value in the recipe, I wouldn't be able to tell as easily what I need to know before I print.
If I want to judge sharpness or focus on smaller negs, I just use a loupe - scanned doesn't help because it isn't always perfect across the whole frame.

I do something like that too.

eddie · May 12, 2014

RedSun said:
For a maximum black, I can expose it 20 seconds, or 15 seconds. Both get my "max black".

You're actually looking for the minimum time for maximum black. In your case, 15 seconds would be correct. 20 seconds would be too much.

I contact print all of my film, because my end result is always a print, and I want to see the contact on the paper it will be printed on. A scan tells me very little about how a print will look on MGIVWT, or MGIV matte.

removed account4 · May 12, 2014

NB23 said:
Why do you bother with film at all?

why does it matter ?

Light Guru · May 12, 2014

NB23 said:
Why do you bother with film at all?

Because the only thing that digital has over film is convenience. I will take film over digital any day.

Why ask a question like yours on a forum devoted to film photography?

MattKing · May 12, 2014

For those who seek to standardize their procedure for contacts, and are like me in that they frequently switch lenses and carriers, I find that an Ilford EM-10 enlarging meter is a great tool for ensuring a consistent light intensity each time.

markbarendt · May 13, 2014

MattKing said:
For those who seek to standardize their procedure for contacts, and are like me in that they frequently switch lenses and carriers, I find that an Ilford EM-10 enlarging meter is a great tool for ensuring a consistent light intensity each time.

Absolutely. Had one, sold it when I traded up to a Beseler PM2L. Any decent enlarger meter should be able to find the standard EV.

tnabbott · Aug 20, 2014

Light Guru said:
Because the only thing that digital has over film is convenience. I will take film over digital any day.

Why ask a question like yours on a forum devoted to film photography?

Agree!

tnabbott · Aug 20, 2014

What settings do folks use for color contact sheets?

aRolleiBrujo · Aug 20, 2014

BOOKMARKED

markbarendt · Aug 20, 2014

tnabbott said:
What settings do folks use for color contact sheets?

I have several color enlargers, each uses a different setting soooooooo.......

tnabbott · Aug 21, 2014

markbarendt said:
I have several color enlargers, each uses a different setting soooooooo.......

How about a Beseler C23 III with color dichronic head.

markbarendt · Aug 21, 2014

As I remember the numbers for Magenta and Yellow were in the 60-80 range. Cyan 0. It's been a while though. Age and use affect filters so that doesn't mean you'll be close with these. My Saunders is set at Cyan 0, Magenta 125, Yellow 160 right now.

The numbers are also affected by the film stock you use and any developing idiosyncrasies you may have. You'll have numbers for each film you use when you are done.

I use a standard sun-lit scene as my baseline. You need to find numbers that get you a "fully corrected" print once.

Google - beseler subtractive color - these "calculators" are a good tool for finding baseline correction numbers and exposure times within a couple test prints. Generally available on E-bay.

Also http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...kw=Kodak+Color+Print+Viewing+Filter+&_sacat=0

Once you find your baseline it's not as hard as it sounds and close is good enough for a proof.

ic-racer · Aug 21, 2014

RedSun said:
Please let me know if I'm missing something from the contact proof.

Waste of time in my opinion. On supreme advantage of film over digital is the fact that the interim process has a clearly visible image. A light source and magnifier are the gold standard of negative analysis.

Why convert your film to an arbitrarily ordered series of charges, invisible to the human eye, and then convert that into some colored lights or spraypaint in order to see it.

marciofs · Dec 7, 2014

I do scan so I can have an idea of what is worth to print. Just for it.

I do it because to set my darkroom (kitchen) takes more time than scan the negative, and I can't wait to see how the images are as soon the negative dries, while I only set the darkroom only once a month, two months or even more depending how often I photograph.

I actually wouldprefer have a contact print of the rools in my film folder, because sometimes I forget how a photo I took years algo look like and then I scan again. But I always forget to do contact print of the roll before starting working, because of the images in my computer.

M Carter · Dec 11, 2014

It's pointless to argue too much over preferred workflows.

Technical errors or misinformation yes. But heck, I make my living with digital stills, video, retouch, editing... I'm in front of the computer all day... yet I can't imagine using it to catalog negs. That would amaze folks that I work with who think of me as 'the mac guy' with the crazy editing suite.

I really like folio-folders with negs in sheets and contact prints, folders labeled as to date or project or tests. Negs and contacts in-hand and ready to print.

But I have a great loupe and a decent sized darkroom with storage, etc., a very lucky luxury (we converted a duplex to one big house so the 2nd kitchen is MINE until we can turn it into a master bath). I certainly feel for anyone in the situation where just making a contact print means hours of setup and teardown!

adelorenzo · Dec 11, 2014

I'm terrible at scanning. Color stuff I can manage OK (because it's my only option) but B&W sucks. I have a nice scanner (Epson V700) and try all the latest software and tricks but I still get awful results with B&W, especially 35mm. I've rejected entire rolls based on scans but then once I printed the contact sheet I end up printing 3-4 negatives from the roll.

So for me that's the value of contact sheets. That and I can flip through my binder of negatives and refer to the contact sheet stored on the next page when I want to print something.

The other thing is it takes FOREVER to scan a roll of film. Close to an hour to do a 35mm roll at 2000 dpi. Then you have to import into light room etc. It takes about 3 minutes to expose, develop and fix a contact sheet.

Contact Proof Printing vs Scan

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency